Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I wrote post 136 and I am sincerely puzzled as to why it was deleted. I said Assange starts his site by leaking harmless stuff, developing a harmless rep, all the while assiduously developing sources, paying them for the info. Much like a sleeper cell. After a while, he finally gets around to doing his harm. What was wrong? Did someone not know the word assiduously?
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Did someone not know the word assiduously?/// Ya, me But I most certainly did not tell Mom on you; in fact I have NEVER done a punk move and reported a post.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I wrote post 136 and I am sincerely puzzled as to why it was deleted.>> Me too. By the way... I don't generally sit around wishing for someone's death. I don't even believe in the death penalty. But how else do you stop a guy like Assange? He has no remorse for what he has done and has vowed to continue no matter what. He has absolutely no moral compass or concern for the result of his actions. Publishing communications that are embarrassing to the government is one thing; releasing a list of sites considered critical to U.S. security is entirely different. What possible good could come from such a thing? He is a clear danger to both our country and others. How else do you stop him? As for the "insurance file" being released if anything happens to him, what difference does it make? We all know he will release that information at some point anyway. Might as well get it out now and put a stop to his future criminal actions.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<But how else do you stop a guy like Assange?>> Put him in jail? But let's say they did kill him - aren't there just others who will take his place? I mean, he isn't the only person that works for WikiLeaks, right? Who else has access to all the information that was shared with the site?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Doesn't it go back to finding the sources for these leaks? Regardless of the intent of publishing them, it's a serious matter that we have people sharing stuff that shouldn't be out there.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Regardless of the intent of publishing them, it's a serious matter that we have people sharing stuff that shouldn't be out there.>> I still think its more a problem of over-classification. When so many things are marked as classified, and yet you allow hundreds, if not thousands, of people to look at the documents, they're bound to get out there. Yes, it's a problem, but it isn't one we're going to solve by punishing a few leakers - this stuff has been going on since governments started to classify information. Instead, the government would probably be better served by limiting the amount of written information that is deemed classified, and limiting who has access to it more carefully.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >>Disclosing locations key to the U.S.'s security reveals egg on whose face, exactly?<< I'm hesitant to believe that anyone interested in attacking the US has found their breakthrough information from anything released by Wikileaks. Does it really surprise -you- that the assets on that list are critical interests? >>And if that happens, people *will* die as a result. Lots of people.<< Source? There's no way to know what is in the insurance file. To latch onto the idea that it contains some sort of spook list a la Mission Impossible is just as far fetched as someone else latching onto the idea that is contains the 'truth' about the JFK assasination and UFOs. A very small number of people know exactly what is inside the file, and they hold a better track record with me than the fuming politicians trying to shut them down. >>Also, as I was reading on another site, it's entirely possible that they have *already* released this "insurance" or will soon, without knowing. There's no doubt that the best of the best cryptologists with enormous computing power at their disposal in any number of countries are all hard at work as we speak trying to crack open their copy (if they haven't already).<< Using an imaginary computer more advanced than the technology currently available that can attempt 1 trillion keys per second, it would 2 million million million years (2 followed by 18 zeros) to brute the key. And *if* there's a computer out there able to crack 128 bit encryption (;D), there may as well be no need for wikileaks. Any encrypted government cable or document is then subject to the same risk of leak merely by being transmitted from source to recipient. >>I'll defend Assange on the arrest though, that sounds to me like a trumped up load of BS designed to discredit him and thus Wikileaks itself so people won't be too upset when they get taken out using perhaps shady means to do so.<< Especially so when one of the accusers has ties to the CIA... <a href="http://tinyurl.com/39qn7b4" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/39qn7b4</a> >>That certainly sounds like rape to me.<< I'm interested in seeing it proved in a fair trial. Until then, innocent until proven guilty. Its curious to note that it was only when the politicians started getting embarrased by Wikileaks did these charges make their way to the top. I mean, a worldwide interpol arrest warrant for sex without a condom while the girl was asleep? Not condoning if that is the case, but someone could rape and assault in california, bail to nevada, and there would be FAR less cohesion in hunting the man down. >>I said Assange starts his site by leaking harmless stuff, developing a harmless rep, all the while assiduously developing sources, paying them for the info.<< To my knowledge, the only financial backing from wikileaks to their sources is inn the form of legal defense funds. These sources give the information to wikileaks by their own accord, without the carrot of money. >>He has absolutely no moral compass or concern for the result of his actions.<< <a href="http://tinyurl.com/29vxtl7" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/29vxtl7</a> Assange: "Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed." He tried. >>As for the "insurance file" being released if anything happens to him, what difference does it make? We all know he will release that information at some point anyway. Might as well get it out now and put a stop to his future criminal actions.< Then by all means, have him shot, RoadTrip. We all get the file opened, and the next in the long list of successors to Assange will fill his shoes within the week. The only way to stop this from happening is by shutting down the internet entirely, for everyone.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The only way to stop this from happening is by shutting down the internet entirely, for everyone.<< Well, sometimes we just have to learn to put up with things to STAY SAFE .... ;-)
Originally Posted By BigManOnCampus some of yous need to learn the facts before you be posting like that. i can see it now these libs do not like it when we try and end hate america talk. get over it. whikkiupleeks is our eneme and should be treated like it. Get a life for Godsakes!
Originally Posted By BigManOnCampus sorry if you cant handle the truth and i will get from the soapbox now and prais america
Originally Posted By ecdc And here's why WikiLeaks and things like them are important: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-reveals-that-mi_n_793816.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...816.html</a> If my tax dollars are going to military contractors who hire child prostitutes, I'd like to know about it and I'd like the practice stopped. People seem so wrapped up in how they feel about Assange. He's a dirtback, a jerk, a...whatever. How do you feel about your government paying for children to have sex with adults? Because that's effectively what's happening.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Thanks, ecdc. My sentiments exactly. I do not defend Assange as a human being. What I defend is WikiLeaks, and why we need whistleblowers like Assange. The HuffPost article sums up one of many reasons beautifully.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder We need whistleblowers. We don't need "whistleblowers" like Assange. Big, huge difference.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox So you only want perfect whistleblowers? Human beings are imperfect. That's simply reality. We need whistleblowers. I don't care if they're not worthy of sainthood.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But what whistle-blowing is he doing by releasing lists of crucial targets such as pipelines? That doesn't sound like whistle-blowing. It sounds like a thoughtless clown tooting his own horn.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So you only want perfect whistleblowers? Human beings are imperfect. That's simply reality. We need whistleblowers. I don't care if they're not worthy of sainthood." Oh Christ. Manson wasn't perfect, either. Neither is bin Laden. Assange is somewhere closer to bin Laden. But you knew that.
